Judge John J. Kralik, Case Number: 23BBCV02069, Date: 2025-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Karen Tutkhalyan (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he was a passenger aboard Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (“LACMTA”) bus and was injured when, upon boarding, the bus driver Defendant Jane Doe accelerated rapidly without allowing Plaintiff to secure himself. Plaintiff alleges that he fell and sustained significant injuries.

The complaint, filed September 8, 2023, alleges a single cause of action for negligence and statutory liability.

On January 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed 2 motions for issue, evidentiary, terminating, and monetary sanctions and for further production and response to demands for inspection and copying of documents and interrogatories.

CCP § 2023.030 permits the Court to impose terminating sanctions for discovery misuses, which are defined by CCP § 2023.010 to include the failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery and the failure to comply with a Court discovery order. The Court weighs the following factors when considering the present motion: (1) defendants’ conduct, indicating whether their actions were willful; (2) the detriment to the party seeking discovery; and (3) the number of formal and informal unsuccessful attempts to obtain discovery. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.)

Under CCP § 2023.030, the Court may impose issue sanctions ordering that designated facts be taken as established in the action in accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by the misuse of the discovery process. (CCP § 2023.030(b).) The Court may impose an evidence sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters in evidence. (CCP § 2023.030(c).) Evidence or issue sanctions may be imposed only after parties violated discovery orders compelling further responses, except in exceptional circumstances, including where there was sufficiently egregious misconduct regarding a failure to respond to discovery, or a prior discovery order would be futile. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1426.) Two prerequisites for the imposition of non-monetary sanctions are: (1) there must be a failure to comply; and (2) the failure must be willful. (Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545.) The party requesting sanctions under CCP §2023.030 and §2023.010(g) must establish that the other party has failed to comply or disobeyed a court order to provide discovery. (CCP §2023.010(g); Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 929 [first requirement of failure to comply].) To avoid sanctions, the burden of proving that a discovery violation was not willful is on the party on whom the discovery was served. (Cornwall v. Santa Monica Dairy Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 250, 252- 253.)

On August 23, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s 3 motions to compel to compel LACMTA’s further responses to: (1) Form Interrogatories, set one (“FROG”); (2) Special Interrogatories, set one (“SROG”); and (3) Request for Production of Documents, set one (“RPD”). Specifically, the Court granted the motion to compel LACMTA’s further responses to FROG Nos. 15.1, 16.1-16.5, and 20.8; denied the motion as to FROG No. 1.1; and denied the motion as moot as to FROG Nos. 12.1, 12.2, 12.4, 14.1, 16.9, and 16.10. The Court granted the motion to compel LACMTA’s further responses to SROG Nos. 5-10, 13, 16-19, 22-23, 26, 29, and 35; and denied the motion as to SROG No. 12. The Court granted the motion to compel LACMTA’s further responses to RPD Nos. 6, 10-13, 16-17, 19-30, 32, 36-38, 40-45, and 46-69; and denied the motion as to RPD Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, 18, 39, 71-75. LACMTA was ordered to provide responses within 45 days of notice of the order. The Court did not impose sanctions but stated that it was inclined to impose sanctions if future discovery issues were presented to the Court.

Plaintiff argues that following the Court’s August 23, 2024 order, Defendant served responses to the interrogatories on October 8, 2024 (to SROG No. 26). (Pilikyan Decl. re Interrogatories, ¶¶8-9, Ex. 7.) She states that she sent a meet and confer letter on October 25, 2024 seeking further compliance with the Court’s order and on December 6, 2024, defense counsel sent unverified second further responses (to SROG Nos. 5-10, 13, 16-19, 22-23, 26, 29, 35). (Id., ¶¶10-11, Exs. 8-9.) She states that she made numerous efforts to informally resolve the matter and Armen Tashjian took the Court’s advice and offered to meet with defense counsel over a cup of coffee, but the attempts to resolve the issues were unsuccessful. (Id., ¶12.) The separate statement accompanying the motion lists only SROG Nos. 10 and 22.

In opposition, LACMTA argues that it has complied with the discovery as it provided the training log which includes the names of the employees, agents, or contractors who trained the bus driver (no. 10) and the “paddle board,” which details when the bus driver started and ended her shift (no. 22).

Here, LACMTA provided responses to the SROGs by relying on CCP § 2030.230[1] and producing documents which contain the information sought in the SROGs. LACMTA should have provided a verified, written response to the SROGs as LACMTA did not make a showing that answering the SROGs would have been burdensome or expensive; however, this is not a motion to compel further responses. LACMTA’s responses show that it attempted to comply with the Court’s order, yet its counsel should have known that the responses were not Code Compliant. Thus, the Court will order that these interrogatories be directly answered. In other respects, the motion for terminating, issue, and evidentiary sanctions regarding the SROGs is denied.

Plaintiff seeks $1,800 in sanctions for bringing this motion (= 2.5 hours on the motion + 2 anticipated hours for the reply and to attend the hearing, at $400/hour). The Court will order sanctions in the amount of $1,000. The Court will also order that LACMTA may not present any witnesses presently known to it that were not identified in these responses.

Plaintiff argues that following the Court’s August 23, 2024 order, Defendant served responses to the RPDs on October 8, 2024. (Pilikyan Decl. re RPDs, ¶¶9-10, Ex. 8.) She states that she sent a meet and confer letter on October 25, 2024 seeking further compliance with the Court’s order and on December 6, 2024, defense counsel sent unverified second further responses. (Id., ¶11, Exs. 9-10.) She states that she and Armen Tashjian made numerous efforts to informally resolve the matter, but the attempts to resolve the issues were unsuccessful. (Id., ¶19.) The separate statement accompanying the motion lists RPD Nos. 6, 10-13, 20-21, 44-47, 49-51, 54-61, 63-64, and 66-67.

Plaintiff argues that LACMTA served a further response to RPD Nos. 6, 12, and 13 claiming privilege, but no privilege log was provided. (Id., ¶¶10, 14.) Plaintiff also argues that in response to Nos. 10-11, LACMTA provided an illegible training log. (Id., ¶13.) Plaintiff argues that no documents were produced as to No. 20, the responses to Nos. 21, 44, and 45 were non-responsive, and LACMTA failed to produce documents in response to RPD Nos. 46-47, 49-51, 54-61, 63-64, and 67. (Id., ¶¶15-18.)

In opposition, LACMTA argues that it provided responses to RPD Nos. 20 and 44, which Plaintiff did not discuss in its moving papers. It further argues that it provided all documents within its possession as to RPD Nos. 10-11, 21, and 45. LACMTA also argues that it did not fail to comply with the Court’s order as to RPD Nos. 6, 12, 13, and 46-69 because it produced a privilege log relying on the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.

Here, further responses were provided by LACMTA following the Court’s order. Nevertheless, these responses continue to rely on objections that were previously overruled and fail to directly state that all documents are being produced except the identified documents being withheld on the basis of privilege.

Plaintiff seeks $2,800 in sanctions for bringing this motion (= 4 hours on the motion + 3 anticipated hours for the reply and to attend the hearing, at $400/hour). The Court will award $1,000 in sanctions. Moreover, Defendant will not be permitted to offer any responsive document presently in their possession at trial. In other respects, the motion for terminating, issue, and evidentiary sanctions regarding the RPDs is denied.

Plaintiff Karen Tutkhalyan’s motions for issue, evidentiary, terminating, and monetary sanctions against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is granted in the following respects:

1. Defendant LACMTA must answer interrogatories directly and without reference to CCP § 2030.230.

2. Defendant LACMTA must directly answer that all documents are being produced except those identified on its privilege log.

3. Defendant LACMTA will not be permitted to call witnesses not identified in its discovery responses and presently known to it.

4. Defendant LACMTA will not be permitted to introduce documents presently in its possession custody and control that were requested and not produced in these document requests.

5. Defendant LACMTA and its attorneys are to pay sanctions in the amount of $2,000 to Plaintiff within thirty days.

[1] CCP § 2030.230 states: “If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. The responding party shall then afford to the propounding party a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these documents and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries of them.”

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department B